Best team not to win the flag in the last 25 years?

[barmy44]

Interesting that people say Geelong had the wood over us all year in 2011. We lost the GF, but then, so did all the teams in this thread. Were 1 kick/umpiring decision from winning the first encounter and clearly there was something wrong round 24.

to bring back an old post of mine, the first game should never have been as close as it was, and our end of season records were almost identical. collingwood were phenomenal in 2011, but i think we had you guys pegged.

game 1: 65-62; i50 = +20 geelong
game 2: 149-53; i50 = +33 geelong
game 3: 119 - 81; i50 = +6 geelong.

so in the three games: 333 - 196; i50 = +59 geelong. 169% in favour of geelong.

so virtually identical 22-3 records, both around 157%, and a 3-0 record in favour of geelong H2H.

 

[The Passenger]

05/06 were certainly frustrating years as a Crows supporter. We had a very good team but but were unlucky. That said, the West Coast and Sydney sides were excellent also.

Yep three excellent teams over those two years but only two flags.

FWIW I thought you guys were the best team in 2005 but really put yourselves behind the 8 ball losing the Saints in the first final.

I'm not one who believes the flag winner is automatically the best team in a year. But winning the flag is the only thing that matters cause it can't be disputed. Everything else is an opinion ultimately worth jack shit.

As for the OP Geelong 2008 and it's not even close. Possibly the best team of the last 25 years full stop. Got dusted on the big stage.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Over a period, probably Geelong 1989-1995.

 

[The Passenger]

Over a period, probably Geelong 1989-1995.

it was tough for geelong fans during that period no doubt. just as hard were buffalo bills in the american football. four superbowl losses in a row in the early 90's.

 

[Mateyman]

to bring back an old post of mine, the first game should never have been as close as it was, and our end of season records were almost identical. collingwood were phenomenal in 2011, but i think we had you guys pegged.

I don't think you can really include the round 24 game for percentage purposes. That game was a complete write off. IIRC our % was about 10 points higher than Geelong's during the season, and I50's aren't really a particularly good measure of a game. By the time we played Geelong twice at the end of the year we were gone anyway. You may be right that you could've got us anyway though.

 

[le dominateur]

1. Geelong (2008) is the standout for me, choked in GF but were classes above all other teams.
2. Saints (2009) great team with a superb defensive record, had enough chances to win the GF by 5 goals.
3. Pies (2011), fell away due to injuries but were 1/4 away from winning the season.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

it's actually amazing how many really great teams crumble in the finals. since 00 Essendon, 20+win teams are 0-3 in grand finals.

I think the current finals system is terribly unfair to the Number 1 (Minor Premier) Team

You can win 22 games ( undefeated) and you still have to win 3 finals ( 2 cut throat) to be premiers

I think if you finish on top of the ladder - you should have 2 opportunities not one to advance to a GF - that should be the reward for finishing 1st

Any one who supports a team that finishes clearly on top of the ladder - will tell you that Preliminary final day - is the most nerve racking / nightmare day of the lot - simply because your only given the one chance to advance to a GF - even though youve had an outstanding season

 

[The_Ru]

Bullshit. Pies 2011 were just as good. Pull your finger out.

No they weren't. Geelong '08 would have beaten the Geelong '11 side you lost to.

 

[calyam]

No they weren't. Geelong '08 would have beaten the Geelong '11 side you lost to.

Given their game style was build specifically to beat Geelong, the 2010 and 2011 Pies squad would have beaten the 2008 Geelong team. Given the 2011 Geelong squad accounted for Collingwood fairly comfortably, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 2011 model was the best Cats squad.

 

[The_Ru]

Umm, did you see how dominant the Pies were during the H&A season that year? It's not like the losses to Geelong were big ones either, and the Pies had pumped them by 16 goals in the Prelim in 2010 as well, so it's not like they held any clear dominance over Collingwood at the time.

Huh? How big does a loss have to be before you class it as big? Geelong won the last H&A game by 96 points.

 

[WCE_phil]

Cats 08, Saints 09, Essendon 99, WCE 91.

 

[BACCS]

The mid-2000s Crows are worth a mention.

We were 14-2 after round 16 in 2006, ending up losing 3 or 4 of our last 6, meaning WC went top. Then choked in the prelim at home to West Coast after being up at 24 points at half time. That's depressing reading...

 

[The_Ru]

Given their game style was build specifically to beat Geelong, the 2010 and 2011 Pies squad would have beaten the 2008 Geelong team. Given the 2011 Geelong squad accounted for Collingwood fairly comfortably, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 2011 model was the best Cats squad.

Your logic is bizarre. They might have tried to develop a game style to beat Geelong, but the fact they couldn't beat 2011 Geelong with it means they DEFINITELY wouldn't have beaten 2008 Geelong with it. You'd have to go a long way to find anyone who thinks Geelong were a better side in '11 than '08.

 

[little graham]

98 Ardent street vintage. Brewed by Pagan, Carey and Longmire wines.

 

[PowerForGood]

Port 2002-2004 were a bloody good side, they just continuously choked come finals.

I shouldn't post because I'm obviously biased to my team, but Port won 16 games (2001), 18 plus a final (2002), 18 plus a final (2003) and 17 plus 2 finals (2004) before finally winning the 2004 flag. All this in the time that the Lions won 17 + 3, 17 + 3, 14 + 3 and 16 + 2 leading to that 2004 decider.

 

[Modified Dog]

i hate to be the typical fan, but im pretty impressed that two of the three sides being offered up frequently were sides geelong had to beat to win the flag. and the third is geelong.

an underrated aspect of geelongs recent success are the incredible teams in '09 saints and '11 magpies which we have come up against and beaten.

Sure they were strong sides, but I think it says more about the state of the AFL in recent years.

There are 5 teams from the past 25 years who finished on top of the ladder with a percentage above 150.0% and who subsequently lost the Grand Final. Interesting that 4 of the 5 instances were from 2008 to 2012.

1. 2008 Geel - 21-1, 161.8% (2672-1651), W QF by 58, W PF by 29, L GF by 26
2. 2011 Coll - 20-2, 167.7% (2592-1546), W QF by 20, W PF by 3, L GF by 38
3. 1991 WCE - 19-3, 162.2% (2485-1532), L QF by 23, W SF by 38, W PF by 15, L GF by 53
4. 2009 St K - 20-2, 155.7% (2197-1411), W QF by 28, W PF by 7, L GF by 12
5. 2012 Haw - 17-5, 154.6% (2697-1733), W QF by 38, W PF by 5, L GF by 10

Over the past 25 years, only 12 teams have finished the year with percentage above 143%

In 2011 alone, there were 3 teams:

• Coll 20-2, 167.7%
• Geel 19-3, 157.4%
• Haw 18-4, 144.1%

The W/L records and massive percentages were somewhat inflated from 2008-2012, partly due to a widening in the gap between top and bottom sides, but also lop-sided fixtures and uncompetitive expansion teams from 2011. There were 3 teams in 2011 who would've been legitimately bad wooden spoon teams - Brisbane (4 wins), Port (3 wins) and Gold Coast (3 wins). This doesn't even include Melbourne who managed to finish 13th.

Collingwood's 2011 season appears to be completely dominant when you look at their number of wins and huge percentage, but when you compare their stats to Geelong and Hawthorn who finished 2nd and 3rd, then the gap isn't so wide.

Same goes for St Kilda and Geelong in 2009, both great sides and nothing really separating them. The Cats were better suited by the rainy conditions on Grand Final day. The Saints weren't anything special in the years immediately before or after 2009. They were okay. They made the Grand Final in 2010, but they were a good side, rather than a great side. It was their 'forward press' in 2009 which took the competition by storm and elevated them above the pack.

I always thought Geelong peaked from 2007 to 2008.

 

[little graham]

I shouldn't post because I'm obviously biased to my team, but Port won 16 games (2001), 18 plus a final (2002), 18 plus a final (2003) and 17 plus 2 finals (2004) before finally winning the 2004 flag. All this in the time that the Lions won 17 + 3, 17 + 3, 14 + 3 and 16 + 2 leading to that 2004 decider.

So in your clubs best ever era, another club won 3 times the GF's and 3 times finals you did.

And they weren't Victorian.

Remarkable.

 

[underthestars]

Geelong 2008 were well beaten on the day. Saints lost to two horrendous umpiring decisions, a toe poke, and a juiced up norm smith medalist. And then only just.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Very hard to win back to back and they couldn't do it, they obviously were the best team over that 4 or 5 year period but not sure you can say thats ''one that got away'' for them, if they had made the GF or even the Prelim and lost a close one then maybe but finishing 6th and bowing out in the second week hardly constitutes ''one that got away'' in my opinion.

The problem was WC being scheduled interstate home finals on short breaks throughout that period.

The AFL really did have a system stacked against interstate sides.

 

[PowerForGood]

So in your clubs best ever era, another club won 3 times the GF's and 3 times finals you did.

And they weren't Victorian.

Remarkable.

Wasn't that the idea behind the thread in that it's about teams who DIDN'T win the flag. We won 69 H&A games over 4 years up to that GF, compared with the great Brisbane Lions who won 64 H&A games over the same period.

We underachieved in finals (as much about key injuries as anything else, but who cares now, it doesn't matter in the end) but that's the same for any good team that doesn't win the flag.

Knew I shouldn't have posted..... *sigh*

 

[Modified Dog]

People are basically comparing teams by their win/loss records and percentage, but they're comparing teams & stats across the years. More attention should be paid to the gap between teams WITHIN each season.

• West Coast '91 finished 3 wins & 26% clear of eventual premiers Hawthorn in 2nd place
• Geelong '08 finished 4 wins & 30% clear of eventual premiers Hawthorn in 2nd place

Both of them were clearly the 2 most dominant teams of their particular season who failed in September. I would rank them as the 2 best non-premiers. As for splitting them, the consensus seems to be for Geelong '08, based on their near perfect W/L record, but the '91 Eagles had a much tougher draw than the 2008 Cats.

Have a look at the ladders from 1991 and 2008.

I've highlighted the teams that West Coast and Geelong played twice

1991

1. West Coast 19-3, 162%
2. Hawthorn 16-6, 136%
3. Geelong 16-6, 132%
4. St Kilda 14-7-1, 120%
5. Melbourne 13-9, 111%
6. Essendon 13-9, 109%
7. Collingwood 12-9-1, 116%
8. North Melb 12-10, 91%
9. Adelaide 10-12, 89%
10. Footscray 9-12-1, 88%
11. Carlton 8-14, 89%
12. Sydney 7-14-1, 85%
13. Richmond 7-15, 87%
14. Fitzroy 4-18, 66%
15. Bris Bears 3-19, 70%

West Coast played 13 games vs Top 8 sides
Their 22 opponents had a combined W/L record of 240-239-5 (50.1% winning record)

2008

1. Geelong 21-1, 162%
2. Hawthorn 17-5, 132%
3. W Bulldogs 15-6-1, 119%
4. St Kilda 13-9, 111%
5. Adelaide 13-9, 110%
6. Sydney 12-9-1, 113%
7. North Melb 12-9-1, 97%
8. Collingwood 12-10, 111%
9. Richmond 11-10-1, 97%
10. Brisbane 10-12, 98%
11. Carlton 10-12, 94%
12. Essendon 8-14, 82%
13. Port Adelaide 7-15, 96%
14. Fremantle 6-16, 94%
15. West Coast 4-18, 66%
16. Melbourne 3-19, 63%

Geelong played just 9 home & away games vs the other finalists (3 of those were played at Kardinia Park)

Their 22 opponents had a combined W/L record of 208-269-7 (43.7% winning record)

Geelong clearly had an easier draw. Some people would argue it wouldn't matter who they played, that they'd win anyway. But when a team plays a series of tough matches against good teams, it takes a physical toll. Players become fatigued and they get injured. It becomes harder to back up against good sides every week, as opposed to setting yourselves for a big game one month away.


West Coast had to travel east 14 times in 1991 (including 3 successive finals)

Geelong had to travel interstate for 5 games. Three of those games were against the competition's easybeats.


Here's a snapshot of their respective games vs the Top 8 teams:

West Coast '91
R01 - Subiaco - Melbourne (13-9) - won by 79
R02 - Waverley - Coll'wood (12-9-1) - won by 27
R04 - Subiaco - North Melb (12-10) - won by 72
R06 - Waverley - Geelong (16-6) - won by 45
R07 - Princes Pk - Hawthorn (16-6) - won by 82
R08 - Windy Hill - Essendon (13-9) - won by 7
R15 - Subiaco - St Kilda (14-7-1) - won by 44
R16 - M.C.G. - Melbourne (13-9) - won by 24
R17 - Subiaco - Coll'wood (12-9-1) - won by 81
R19 - M.C.G. - North Melb (12-10) - lost by 3
R21 - Subiaco - Geelong (16-6) - won by 1
R22 - Subiaco - Hawthorn (16-6) - won by 24
R23 - Subiaco - Essendon (13-9) - won by 63
Q.F. - Subiaco - Hawthorn (16-6) - lost by 23
S.F. - Waverley - Melbourne (13-9) - won by 38
P.F. - Waverley - Geelong (16-6) - won by 15
G.F. - Waverley - Hawthorn (16-6) - lost by 53

14 wins, 3 losses, 140.4%
Avg points for - 106.8
Avg points ag - 76.1


Geelong '08
R04 - Etihad - St Kilda (13-9) - won by 42
R05 - Geel - Sydney (12-9-1) - won by 42
R09 - MCG - Collwood (12-10) - lost by 86
R11 - Etihad - North (12-9-1) - won by 13
R14 - Adel - Adelaide (13-9) - won by 68
R16 - Geel - Bulldogs (15-6-1) - won by 61
R17 - MCG - Hawthorn (17-5) - won by 11
R20 - Syd - Sydney (12-9-1) - won by 39
R21 - Geel - North (12-9-1) - won by 33
Q.F. - MCG - St Kilda (13-9) - won by 58
P.F. - MCG - Bulldogs (15-6-1) - won by 29
G.F. - MCG - Hawthorn (17-5) - lost by 26

10 wins, 2 losses, 127.8%
Avg points for - 108.9
Avg points ag - 85.3


As impressive as Geelong's record was in 2008, there was an element of flat-track bullying. The Cats had 13 wins, 0 losses and a percentage of 193% vs the bottom 8 sides. (That's a 10 goal average winning margin.)

 

[biggiemediums]

There is a difference though:

- Geelong in 2008 had beaten Hawthorn the only time they'd met during home and away.
- St.Kilda in 2009 had beaten Geelong the only time they'd met during home and away.
- Collingwood in 2011 had lost to Geelong both times they'd met during home and away, and been slaughtered by them on the eve of the finals.

Yeah but it's not all about that single season. Pies 2011 would've had every chance to beat St Kilda 2009. If it's all related to that single season then it becomes more of a debate about the stength/weakness of that particular season.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Geelong '89. Problem was the stupid game plan Blight used in the first quarter of the GF, which cost us the match.

This poster may be a crack whore.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Geelong '89. Problem was the stupid game plan Blight used in the first quarter of the GF, which cost us the match.

Was it the stupid game plan or was it undisciplined players going the knuckle, star players not getting near it and panicking with their disposal when they did or the nothing more than workmanlike backline? There's all sorts of reasons Geelong did't win that game, their opponents being the big one.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

It's easy to nominate Geelong of '08 and yes they did have a monumental choke on the big day but people seem to forget how well Hawthorn played during that whole finals series.

Collingwood in '11, no. If they'd lost it in '10 then I'd agree.

Probably the Saints in '09 very similar to Geelong of '08. Both should have had the game put to bed by half time.